posted
How long has this comic book thing been going on? 10 years?
Now I'll admit that the genre has netted some *ok* movies, but has anyone else been sensing the growing cloud of special-effects for the sake of having them, combined with Michael Bayesque cinematic styles and "envelope pushing" themes in movies staring just slightly substandard actors in stories that are half-interesting if only because the audience wants to find out how the filmakers manage to put a person in the costume and not make it campy?
I just think even a workmanlike "Iron Man" is run of the mill, with its super slick technology and visuals that we've seen in Transformers, and somehow never manage to impress the way that the old sci-fi thrillers did. It's boring! It's lame! It's escapist!
Is it really that we've turned some creative corner in America and have decided that no new ideas or genres need be explored? Do we really feel that this is the height of summer entertainment? Really???
How many of us just don't get the superhero, comic book thing? Aren't there vast swathes of the population that didn't read all of these super involved comics throughout childhood?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are countless indie films and foreign flicks if escapist and entertainment for entertainment sake aren't your thing. Clearly, many of us enjoy a good action flick.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even for the comic book fans, I would question whether these movies deserve to be called "GOOD action flicks."
The most recent "Hulk" film did so poorly that its already been remade. "Spiderman 3" was embarrassing and the "X-Men" trilogy was hardly adequate and both were more like a very pale and boring shadows in comparison to the original source material.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit, I'd like it if they were better, but it seems that at least half of movies are average to poor, why should blockbusters be any different?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, Road to Perdition, American Splendor, and Ghostworld were all movies based on comic books. What did you think of them?
Super-heroes=! the only kind of comic book genre.
Escapist action films are not a product of the last decade only. Heck, escapist films period have been around almost as long as film itself. If you don't like them, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not like you're forced to watch them. Right?
Edit to add: And what MightyCow said, pretty much all types of films are poor-to-mediocre. This hardly a genre-specific failing.
Concluding someone liked a film you didn't because they're foolish, unoriginal, and just not able to think of anything better seems a bit over the top, though.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've not seen any of those. But Road to Perdition was a graphic novel... if there is a distinction. It's not a pulp comic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I've not seen any of those. But Road to Perdition was a graphic novel... if there is a distinction. It's not a pulp comic.
Graphic novels are comics, but not all comics are graphic novels.
Though, I should note, there are many graphic novels that tell tales of puple adventure...because a graphic novel is a medium of comic, not a genre. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason "graphic novels" are okay, whereas "comics" are not, is that it's not unreasonable to hold your pinky in the air and squint down your nose at someone through a monocle while saying "Pardon me whilst I partake of this latest graphic novel."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee Tom, I thought there was actually some distinguishable material difference between the two.
Ever consider the fact that you're no less a snob than anyone here?
Edit: What annoys me most is your assumption that I think one medium is superior over the other, having little to no experience with either. I have read a grant total of one graphic novel, which I enjoyed, and two comic books (the death of superman special edition set), which I also immensely enjoyed. I would say I preferred superman between the two. And I could find a lot to say about how involving both were.
That however, has nothing to do with whether I think comics translate well into film, which I don't. I say this because though comics seem to be able to remain diverse and multi-themed, all the superhero comic movies are all very much the same, and some of them are very bad.
Are you so interested in flinging crap that you don't even notice I haven't taken a position on the subject because I don't know enough about it? Does your comment add to the discussion?
quote:Is it really that we've turned some creative corner in America and have decided that no new ideas or genres need be explored? Do we really feel that this is the height of summer entertainment? Really???
As far as I know, there's no indication that comic book movies are taking over. There are still plenty of other movies being made.
Orincoro, do you think it's fair to roundly criticize a genre that you don't have much experience or investment in?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ever consider the fact that you're no less a snob than anyone here?
Not for long, no. It's blatantly untrue.
Speaking as a reader of comic books, the only consistent difference between a "comic book" and a "graphic novel" is the intended audience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the latest slew of comic book movies is in large part due to the endeavors of George Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic with their major contributions to CGI. Now that we can literally put anything on the screen, and the cost is relatively speaking, quite affordable, somebody realized we could make super hero movies that were not feasible in the live action format.
A few years ago I heard people saying that nerd was the new black, but I think it's more a function of the things previously associated with nerdom have steadily increased for many years, whereas the things associated with other cliques have remained stagnant. The only quasi new athletic development in the last 50 years I can think of is Ultimate Fighting.
Comics are no exception, there are new ones being made all the time, and now that we are enabled with the ability to put them on the silver screen, many of them are.
I think you will find that many of the older comic book super heroes introduced radical themes that at the time they were written were quite interesting, but they could not be made into movies at the time they were created. X-men I think falls into this category.
I wouldn't call myself a huge comic book fan, I've only read a few, but I can still recognize these things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter how many you put together of most newspaper comics, they will not be a graphic novel. There isn't a complete equivalence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: movies staring just slightly substandard actors
Actors like: Marlon Brando Gene Hackman Jack Nicholson Christian Bale Liam Neeson Michael Caine Gary Oldman Morgan Freeman Toby Maguire Willim DaFoe Kirsten Dunst Alfred Molina Hugh Jackman Patrick Stewart Halle Berry Ian McKellen Edward Norton Robert Downey Jr. Tim Roth William Hurt Gwyneth Paltrow
posted
When comic book series or specific arcs of comic book series are collected in paperback form, it's a "trade paperback." Comic series written specifically for that form are called "graphic novels."
However, since the form is exactly the same, the term "graphic novel" is used to describe both, especially when the collection has been out long enough for new readers to encounter it first as a collection, i.e. "Watchmen" or "V For Vendetta."
I don't think basing movies on comics in inherently a bad idea, any more than basing movies on books or fairy tales or TV shows or any other source for stories. I do think that sacrificing story for spectacle is a bad idea, but it's not new by any means.
What's new is the marketing and the massive draw of summer movies, many of which fall into the "spectacle over story" category. So why not complain about that, instead of arbitrarily criticizing a genre?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: movies staring just slightly substandard actors
Actors like: Marlon Brando Gene Hackman Jack Nicholson Christian Bale Liam Neeson Michael Caine Gary Oldman Morgan Freeman Toby Maguire Willim DaFoe Kirsten Dunst Alfred Molina Hugh Jackman Patrick Stewart Halle Berry Ian McKellen Edward Norton Robert Downey Jr. Tim Roth William Hurt Gwyneth Paltrow
?
Le Beuff trumps the entire list.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Transformers based on a series of toys or a cartoon series, and not a comic book (although possibly a comic book was spun off at one point)?
In any case, the more important part is that this seems to be a pretty good case where the market will work itself out. If there are indeed too many comic book movies, then the market will saturate and less will be made and some other genre will come to the forefront. If this is not the case ... then you don't have to watch them
In my case, I haven't watched a Hollywood/North American movie for probably more than a year or so (except for 'The Forbidden Kingdom' which I watched for its "non-Hollywood content"). Nonetheless, I've probably watched upwards of thirty movies or more. You have choices Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
If so, Transformers was a toy line that spawned a popular TV show. Later a comic book line was launched, but it was not long lived or particularly popular. I don't think that qualifies it as a "comic book movie".
As far as superhero movies go, they can be pretty darn good movies (Iron Man, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman Begins, etc) or pretty darn bad movies (Catwoman, Elektra, Fantastic Four, Daredevil) completely independent of the quality of the source material.
If comic book fans had predicted which to be the better movie, Fantastic Four or Iron Man, I suspect most would have chosen the Fantastic Four. Writers, directors, and actors trump comic book source quality big time.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Le Beuff trumps the entire list.
While I'm not familiar with "Le Beuff", I'm not sure how the quality of his or her acting is relevant to your assertion that the actors in comic book movies are "slightly substandard".
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In any case, the more important part is that this seems to be a pretty good case where the market will work itself out. If there are indeed too many comic book movies, then the market will saturate and less will be made and some other genre will come to the forefront. If this is not the case ... then you don't have to watch them
In my case, I haven't watched a Hollywood/North American movie for probably more than a year or so (except for 'The Forbidden Kingdom' which I watched for its "non-Hollywood content"). Nonetheless, I've probably watched upwards of thirty movies or more. You have choices
Can we dismiss the "you don't have to watch it" argument from our intellectual vocabulary as a group? There is no one here who not aware of his or her own freedom to not partake in popular entertainment. I think this argument, that if you "don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," which is something I was raised with, is wrong. It takes people speaking up positively or negatively to shape and change the flow of events in mainstream culture.
My choice to not patronize these films is more complicated than a simple yes or no. Mass media is an element of our culture that can't be positively ignored, and so whether I buy into the films or not, I am subject to their influence. Aside from that, they are not always avoidable, and they are not always terrible, or need to be avoided.
I don't entirely believe that the free hand of the market will "correct" or perfect the media to keep it in balance with what people *need* from art. I believe that the market is good at providing what sells, or more specifically they are good at selling what is provided, but I really don't believe that "the market" alone gives you any of the things that have been long valued in art. Most of the great music of history was created by people who aspired less to financial capital, and more to cultural advancement. Shakespeare knew he would never be very rich, but that he could ascend in status, just like Chaucer. Our history is full of the examples of people who weren't doing it for the money, but had other stronger motivators.
But Hollywood does it for the money. And on the level that people generally believe they can advance themselves in Hollywood, it is through the perception of wealth and financial power. This is obviously because film became and remained a cash business from its inception. It was the best, and in some ways remains the best, cash medium for artistic expression that was ever created. It was the first experiential artistic experience that could be repeated upon demand, for money. That completely changes the dynamic between the artist, the medium, and the audience, or consumer. I tend to believe that it also damages film's flexibility and range.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I love the fact that Hollywood is making big-budget Superhero films. I was grinning ear-to-ear throughout most of Iron Man.
Comics were my first "hobby" as a child and to see them "brought to life" on the big screen brings back those memories of spending hours creating my own stories for the heroes I read about in the comics.
Sure they're escapist. And sure some shouldn't have been made, but I love the fact that people are trying and some even succeeding at bringing these characters to screen form.
Of course Hollywood's in it for the money, but I'd rather watch an Iron Man film than another equally escapist action film remake or sequel.
But it's all a matter of taste...
Heck, most of radio top 40 hits rub me the wrong way, but I don't have to listen. Sure, I still hear a lot of it, but for the most part there's no reason for me to let it get under my skin.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we dismiss the "you don't have to watch it" argument from our intellectual vocabulary as a group?
Just as soon as we similarly dismiss the "demand that certain things not be made at all just because the person making the demand doesn't like it" plea.
posted
Most of the great music of history was created by people who aspired less to financial capital, and more to cultural advancement. Shakespeare knew he would never be very rich, but that he could ascend in status, just like Chaucer. Our history is full of the examples of people who weren't doing it for the money, but had other stronger motivators.
Most of the great music of history was created by people already wealthy, or patronized. And frankly, we don't know much of anything about Shakespeare, including his motives. Perhaps the stronger motive was money but he felt he could tell a good tale at the same time. He left no diaries, we have no records of him turning down offers or putting art over commerce. We have absolutely no way of knowing.
Much of what has "long been valued in art" has only been valued by a small portion of the population anyway, even when easily available.
Far as I can tell, you're annoyed that Hollywood spends so much money to make so many crapful movies that so many people want to see. If that's the case, I cannot help you. My question is, why pick on comic book movies? There will be, what, three released this year? Out of how many?
At the very least, please refine your complaints to "superhero movies." You complain about comic books and I think about "Strangers in Paradise" and "Cerebus" and "Sandman" and "Sin City" and "Runaways" and "Road to Perdition" and "Ghost World" and... "Comic books" does not define a genre. It's a form, like books or paintings or recordings. Every genre of storytelling can be (and has been) expressed in serial graphic format, with just as much variance in quality as any other format.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hollywood goes through phases. Remember the disaster movie phase?
I'm one member of that 'vast swath of the population' who didn't partake in the comic book or graphic novel genre.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, patronage is not wealth. Patronage is completely different from the modern music or film industries, it depends on the idea that the artist must depend on a single donor or a small number of supporters to produce work that is not marketable. Mozart died penniless because his music was not marketable at the time, but he did not die poor- if he had lived, he would have been provided for.
Because the market could not support Mozart's chamber music (it was too difficult and new), the spread of its popularity took several generations to reach its zenith. During that time, the market supported and propagated the works of lesser composers, like Salieri, or even Haydn at the loss of both progress, and ultimately musical enjoyment, imo.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The reason "graphic novels" are okay, whereas "comics" are not, is that it's not unreasonable to hold your pinky in the air and squint down your nose at someone through a monocle while saying "Pardon me whilst I partake of this latest graphic novel."
Perhaps it's just me, but I'd laugh in that guy's monocled face if he said that.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we dismiss the "you don't have to watch it" argument from our intellectual vocabulary as a group?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --HERBERT SPENCER
In other words: sure. Just expect to not be taken seriously.
If you don't like comic book movies, don't pay to see them. That's the american way, and you can bet that when the genre ceases to be profitable we'll stop seeing them. Likely not before.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And frankly, we don't know much of anything about Shakespeare, including his motives. Perhaps the stronger motive was money but he felt he could tell a good tale at the same time. He left no diaries, we have no records of him turning down offers or putting art over commerce. We have absolutely no way of knowing.
I disagree. There is a fair bit of evidence that when Shakespeare was writing, his plays were viewed much the way TV is viewed now -- as lowbrow, and catering to the common man.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we dismiss the "you don't have to watch it" argument from our intellectual vocabulary as a group?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --HERBERT SPENCER
Again, seemingly apt quotation in the place of argument.
"The sweetest irony is derived from the spectacle of a person who believes himself to be above the characterizations he makes of those around him." - Orincoro
See? Smug little quotations make you look like a smug little person. And nothing in your post even comes near adressing my point, which is that your argument "if you don't like then don't ____" is a fallacy. If I don't like something, then that something has already affected me, and that effect can't be dismissed by pretending to ignore it. That argument is about as good as covering your ears and shouting at the top of your lungs.
(The retort you would like to use is too obvious.)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And frankly, we don't know much of anything about Shakespeare, including his motives. Perhaps the stronger motive was money but he felt he could tell a good tale at the same time. He left no diaries, we have no records of him turning down offers or putting art over commerce. We have absolutely no way of knowing.
I disagree. There is a fair bit of evidence that when Shakespeare was writing, his plays were viewed much the way TV is viewed now -- as lowbrow, and catering to the common man.
I wasn't even going to address the point, because it isn't very honest. Chris doesn't know much about Shakespeare, therefore no one is allowed to know much about him. Oh, but we have dozens of his plays lying around... well those aren't evidence of anything.
Do you also believe that the real Shakespeare was Sir Francis Bacon? Having been to Stratford and, studied Shakespeare in London, I'm convinced that the Shakespeare myths are all fairy tales. There's a fair bit known about the man, and everything points to him being a social climber, who appealed to the masses through his treatment of class boundaries- and he did all this in one of the only media open to a commoner to attain notoriety.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still scratching my head, trying to make sense of Orincoro's "Le Beuff" comment. It seems like he's trying to argue that the fact that this "Le Beuff" person is, in his estimation, a fantastic actor, and that the fact that "Le Beuff" hasn't acted in any superhero movies means that the people I listed who have acted in them are substandard actors. The thing is, that's such an idiotic thing to be trying to assert that I'm sure that I must simply be reading him incorrectly.
[Edited to replace a proper noun with a pronoun]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, I took it to mean that "None of those actors comes close to Le Beuff." Equally silly, but also a matter of opinion I strongly disagree with. I found that list to be pretty telling.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I recommend "Shakespeare: The World as Stage" by Bill Bryson. Short, to the point, and an exhaustive study of everything we actually know about Wm. Shakespeare. Not what we infer from his plays, not what can be deduced about him generations later from fourth-hand accounts. What we actually know, on paper, about his life, his works, his family, and what his contemporaries thought of him. Also some interesting stories about how we know what we know. There just isn't very much at all, although an awful lot of people have managed to write long books about him anyway based on recurring themes or compelling metaphors in his plays.
I do find it interesting that by suggesting money as a motivator for Shakespeare -- and at no point have I ever suggested that might have been was his only motivation -- Orincoro immediately assumed that a) I knew nothing of the man, and b) I believed myths about him. Apparently if even a whiff of commerce enters art, it somehow ceases to be art for Orincoro.
And Rivka - what Shakespeare's audiences thought about his work still doesn't tell us what was in his mind when he was writing it. Was his goal to produce masterpieces that would stir the emotions of millions? Or was he trying to fill seats? Or both?
I am firmly of the belief that an artist can take a job for pay and still create great art. As far as I am concerned, part of Shakespeare's genius was that he could write plays that appealed to the English masses and still be popular to people hundreds of years later in entirely different societies.
[end of diversion]
Orincoro, most of my comments in this thread have been about the whopping great fallacy in your initial post, something you still have not addressed: why are you criticizing "comic book" movies when it's an inaccurate and misleading description, like saying "Stop making movies based on hardback books"?
A more accurate description, and one I would probably share, is that Hollywood is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make spectacle-filled, cookie-cutter, soulless movies and not putting marketing dollars behind the smaller, better-written, better-acted movies that enrich the spirit and do more than kill two hours of your time. Some of those drab and soulless movies have been based on superhero comics.
In fact, a better example (to me) of that is Star Wars. The first three set people on fire. New and exciting, with cheesy effects and cheesy dialogue that nonetheless excited and deeply touched moviegoers. Followed, decades later, by expensive, overproduced, CG-enhanced crapfests. With, I might add, world-class actors in them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that at first Noemon, actually I thought he meant that La Beuff was better than everyone on the last, but the more I thought about it, and if he means Shia LeBeouf, I find that to be an utterly impossible sell, as I think he daringly manages to be average in his acting most of the time, the more I think he means that Shia's acting renders the rest of them totally irrelevent because he's that bad.
Neither argument makes much sense to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better and more defensible title for the thread would be "Stop it with the Bad Comic Book Movies."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the OP. By and large most "super-hero" films of late have been astoundingly lame, even the ones with good casts and directors. I believe this recent crop of comic book movies started with 1998's "Blade" and that was surely the best one--it took the idea of the comic book and fashioned a solid, self-sustained action film that didn't needlessly keep reminding us of its origin in comics, as the rest are wont to do.
I also hate the deliberate cheesiness of the Spider-Man films, like when people stand around gaping at Spider-man and cheering him on. Yuck. Seriously, I would rather have traditional action and science fiction films than these immature and insipid adaptations of cheap children's material from the past.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: In fact, a better example (to me) of that is Star Wars. The first three set people on fire. New and exciting, with cheesy effects and cheesy dialogue that nonetheless excited and deeply touched moviegoers. Followed, decades later, by expensive, overproduced, CG-enhanced crapfests. With, I might add, world-class actors in them.
I'm with you, except for the last bit... Hayden Christiansen is one of the worst actors ever to be placed in such a high budget movie. Jake Lloyd is a very close second, with an honorary title as the worst cast child actor in cinematic history.
What about Christiansen's performance was defensible, other than the fact that got no aid from god awful scripts?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the more I think he means that Shia's acting renders the rest of them totally irrelevent because he's that bad.
Neither argument makes much sense to me.
Especially since its been pointed out that he's never actually been in a movie based on a comic book.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: the_Somalian. Really? Name them. Here's a few, without a single well-known costumed hero in the bunch:
American Splendor. Ghost World. Men in Black. The Rocketeer. Bulletproof Monk. Man-Thing. Sin City. Judge Dredd. From Hell. V for Vendetta. The Crow. Constantine. Tank Girl. Mystery Men. A History of Violence. 300. 30 Days of Night. Persepolis. Art School Confidential.
Some - most? - are certainly mediocre. Some are bad. Some are fantastic. At least five of the movies in that list were nominated for Oscars, and one (Road to Perdition) won one.
UPDATE: on rereading, I think you were limiting your comment to superhero comic book movies. I reacted to the second, more general comment.
--------------------------------
Orincoro, I think I'm narrowing down our differences. I mention world class actors in relation to the second Star Wars trilogy. I'm thinking Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid, Terence Stamp, Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson... and you pick out the two most obvious bad actors in those movies and present them as if they somehow negate my point.
And now I realize, that's what you do. You define something by the worst thing in it. No matter what heights of quality might exist in all the realm of things that can be defined by "bleem", you leap upon the single worst example that can be described as being bleemish and use it to decide, forever more, without chance of appeal, that bleems suck.
This thread has reminded me of the last time we did this, talking about fan fiction. Which I am not going to start again. But the exact same thing happened (even to the Shakespeare invocation). I could not, try as I might, get you to accept that anything that could be categorized as fan fiction could in any way be good, because you had already decided that fan fiction = bad and no amount of evidence could budge you.
So I shall respectfully back away from an argument that cannot be won, and just go see Iron Man again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we dismiss the "you don't have to watch it" argument from our intellectual vocabulary as a group?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." --HERBERT SPENCER
Again, seemingly apt quotation in the place of argument.
"The sweetest irony is derived from the spectacle of a person who believes himself to be above the characterizations he makes of those around him." - Orincoro
See? Smug little quotations make you look like a smug little person. And nothing in your post even comes near adressing my point, which is that your argument "if you don't like then don't ____" is a fallacy. If I don't like something, then that something has already affected me, and that effect can't be dismissed by pretending to ignore it. That argument is about as good as covering your ears and shouting at the top of your lungs.
(The retort you would like to use is too obvious.)
You don't have a point. You're an idiot -- you have only rants, willful ignorance, righteous (and largely misplaced) indignation, and the ability that all great whiners have; the ability to totally and loudly ignore anything said by anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Plus, I hear from a reliable source that you have BO.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
